Re: Foucault, Marx, Poulantzas

[LeoCasey@xxxxxxx]

<< So, my question is would you go as far as Laclau and Mouffe, would you
agree that "if we renounce the hypothesis of a final closure of the social,
it is necessary to start from a plurality of political and social spaces
which do not refer to any ultimate unitarian basis. Plurality is not the
phenomenon to be explained, but the starting point of the analysis" (L &
M,140)? >>

Yes. I find the analyses of Laclau and Mouffe to be most useful and helpful.
I have known them for over 20 years, having first met them while I was the
first national Field Director for DSA, and having dialogued with them over
the years. With the exception of Laclau's Zizekian turn, which now seems to
be on the wane [at least that is my reading of the book Laclau and Zizek did
with Judith Butler, where Laclau was distinctly unimpressed with Zizek's
Leninist tropes], I have found myself in strong agreement with their
theoretical analysis.

Leo Casey
United Federation of Teachers
260 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)

Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never has, and it never will.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.

-- Frederick Douglass --